[munchbunny]

Did you see how complex the data structure actually is? If I had to choose between implementing a Judy array and implementing JPEG, I'd much rather try to write the JPEG code.

Patenting a data structure sounds ridiculous, but it's a little less ridiculous once you consider how complex the underlying algorithms actually are.

[taeric]

So... I can patent complicated math? This is essentially what you are saying, right?

[munchbunny]

That's not what I'm saying and you know it. Please don't turn my point into a caricature.

JPEG was patented. I can understand why. It was novel, it was not obvious, and it was useful. That trio makes a pretty good case for patentability, ignoring whether algorithms can/should be patented in general.

From what I've read, Judy arrays are novel, not obvious (moreso than JPEG, in my subjective opinion), and useful. So it doesn't seem far fetched to patent Judy arrays, ignoring whether algorithms can/should be patented in general.

Which is why I said "a little less ridiculous". This has nothing to do with complicated math, even though both data structures/algorithms involve complicated math.

[jlgreco]

> It was novel, it was not obvious, and it was useful.

You could say the same of the Pythagorean theorem, or FFT. Thankfully in the case of the later, IBM's patent lawyers exhibited sanity.

[30thElement]

All software patents are patents on complicated math.

[tjoff]

From what I've seen software patents seems to be mostly trivial math.

[jlgreco]

Trivial math with a relatively inaccessible notation. The notation is why most people seem to have a hard time recognizing it as math I think, people have tunnel-vision and think of "math" as the stuff they learned in primary school.

[munchbunny]

Non-trivial theoretical basis, reduced to trivial math for implementation.

JPEG and wavelet compression in practice is surprisingly simple math. But the theory that explains why and how it works is far from trivial.

[cma]

All inventions are complicated math.

[jlgreco]

No, some inventions are describable with math. Some 'inventions' are math. A Wankel engine is not math. You can model it and describe it with math, but that is irrelevant.

Any equation that you can make will merely describe a Wenkel engine, not be one. Equations for mathematical concepts are those concepts (expressed in a particular format).

[cma]

A distinction without a difference.

[jlgreco]

You really don't see a difference?

If I write out a book parametrization a Wankel engine and describing the chemistry and physics of the system necessary to make it turn, I have not implemented a Wankel engine, and I am in violation of no patents. It is a description of the engine, not an engine.

A mathematical description of an algorithm can be executed. It is the algorithm. The description is an implementation and any implementation is the description. There is literally no line between the two, the only thing that you can change is the notation in which you write it.

If you don't see the difference, you are just being obtuse. The difference is as plain the difference between physics and mathematics.

[cma]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesi...

[jlgreco]

So is JPEG's complexity the cutoff for you? What do you think of the LZW patents then? LZW is simple as hell.

[munchbunny]

To be completely honest, I'm not sure where I stand because it's a very complex issue.

JPEG met the novelty, non-obviousness, and usefulness tests, as did LZW. That they're considered nearly trivial these days is because they were such influential algorithms that they've become part of the programming canon.

That said, please don't represent my stance as a matter of a cutoff. Many things in this world, including the question of patentability, are fuzzy distinctions that require some subjective "good judgement." Common law legal systems are bad at handling this, which is partly why judicial philosophy is so complex.

If I oppose patenting an algorithm/data structure, it's because I don't think patent protection is necessary in order for people to push the state of the art forward.

[jlgreco]

LZW isn't considered trivial because it has "become part of programming canon".

It is considered trivial because it is trivial: http://rosettacode.org/wiki/LZW_compression#Clojure

[munchbunny]

You're calling it trivial with over 30 years of advancements in computer science behind you. Also, thanks for picking the shortest sample on the page to show that it's trivial.

If it were trivial when the patentability question came up, it wouldn't have been a published paper in the IEEE Transactions on Information Theory and an active area of publication for at least the next six years.

Whether or not it's trivial today, this was the cutting edge of computer science when the patent was granted.

[jlgreco]

All of those examples are trivial, they're all the same algorithm. I merely picked one of the more terse, which really has nothing to do with triviality.

Seriously, read that.

You're calling it trivial with over 30 years of advancements in computer science behind you.

Yes, of course I fucking can. The ability to do that is part of what makes a "person having ordinary skill in the art" an important concept. Even 30 years ago LZW represented an incremental improvement on the current state of the art.

Regardless of the novelty of the idea, LZW has always been trivial to implement.

> it wouldn't have been a published paper in the IEEE Transactions on Information Theory and an active area of publication for at least the next six years.

I am not arguing that it fails the usefulness test, nor that it was not important.

Your "this looks like a pain in the ass to implement" defense of the patent is absurd. You clearly would support the patent regardless, since you seem to be fine with the LZW patents.

[munchbunny]

You didn't read everything I said about software patents. I oppose software patents because I don't think our society needs them. But then again, you can try to pidgeonhole my opinion if you want to.

I'm talking about patents. You're answering that LZW is trivial today. Yes, it is, but the time difference is huge when you're talking about a patent that is 30 years old and now public domain, especially when you're talking about a "person having ordinary skill in the art" regarding a patent application.

The great thing about threads like this is that we probably agree on the key points, but it becomes a disagreement the moment you escalate your language.